Britton explains why Arrieta flourished in Chicago

[MagicBird]

On First Take talking about PED accusations for Jake . . . . .

[baltfan]

Also Arrieta was older when he got to the Cubs. At that point, it was easy for the Cubs to say, "Let's just let him do it his way. If it doesn't work out, what is the big deal?"

[Can_of_corn]

It doesn't look like this has been posted yet - here were a couple interesting quotes from his interview with ESPN yesterday:

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/15411588/chicago-cubs-ace-jake-arrieta-talks-mindsets-workouts-winning-world-series

This is what I'm talking about. "A lot of it is with good intention -- coaches are trying to genuinely help players make adjustments to better themselves. But it was just something where I knew that I could be more consistent in my delivery if I just did it my way."

So he knows they mean well but he also knows that he would be better off doing it his way. That, to me, screams someone not buying into the program.

Sorry Stotle, we just have a disconnect here. I can't see where it is acceptable in any industry for the employee to push back against what the employer wants.

As for communication, I certainly don't know how much time was or was not spent in explaining the whys of the changes they wanted to make.

[btownoriole]

This is what I'm talking about. "A lot of it is with good intention -- coaches are trying to genuinely help players make adjustments to better themselves. But it was just something where I knew that I could be more consistent in my delivery if I just did it my way."

So he knows they mean well but he also knows that he would be better off doing it his way. That, to me, screams someone not buying into the program.

Sorry Stotle, we just have a disconnect here. I can't see where it is acceptable in any industry for the employee to push back against what the employer wants.

As for communication, I certainly don't know how much time was or was not spent in explaining the whys of the changes they wanted to make.

There's a difference between insubordination and push-back. I want a culture where my staff feels they can push back on me. They understand that ultimately I have the final authority, but I'm more interested in achieving results than following a process that may not work for everyone.

[Can_of_corn]

There's a difference between insubordination and push-back. I want a culture where my staff feels they can push back on me. They understand that ultimately I have the final authority, but I'm more interested in achieving results than following a process that may not work for everyone.

But the employee should buy in totally toward your process until it is proven flawed. Push back should only happen after that stage. They should respect you and the process enough to allow that to happen.

I never got the feeling that Jake ever bought into the program.

Of course I might be wrong, no way for me to know.

Maybe he did try his utmost to make the O's system work for him, in which case his culpability is reduced.

[jtschrei]

To me, this is simple. We did not coach Arrieta well. I would love to know what Buck was doing or thinking when Adair was supposedly destroying the confidence of Arrieta, Matusz, Tillman, and Britton. Was Buck on board with Adair's tactics? Seems like he was. It's hard to believe he didn't know the relationship between his pitching coach and players.

My personal belief is that Buck thought Arrieta needed to grow up or toughen up and when Arrieta continued to struggle Buck gave up on him.

I said at the time that the Orioles HAD to try Arrieta in the bullpen. His stuff was just too good. No one can tell me that Jake couldn't run it up there at 97/98 in short stints out of the pen. And yet we never tried him out there? Why not? Because Buck had given up on him. That's my theory.

When we finally tried Britton out of the pen, in many ways because we had too. Zach couldn't crack the rotation, was out of options, and we didn't want to lose him off waivers. And look at the success that Britton has had out there. He's LIGHTS OUT. One of the most dominant guys in baseball. And say what you want about Matusz (and he has never inspired confidence from me except when facing Papi), but Matusz has given the club value out of the pen.

I'll never understand why we didn't try Arrieta out of the pen. Never. I can only think Buck had given up on him. It's a damn shame we gave up on the best pitcher in baseball right now. A damn shame. He's exactly what we need.

[webbrick2010]

I can see buying into a program that has a history of proven performance

But what did the O's "program" have then or now?

[DrungoHazewood]

I can see buying into a program that has a history of proven performance

But what did the O's "program" have then or now?

So what you're saying is that the only way for a struggling organization to right itself is on the backs of individuals who figure things out on their own. Why would anyone, for example, trust the Phillies since they've gone in the tank? Their pitchers need to tell the coaching staff to stick it, and go out on their own. Right?

[Ohfan67]

But the employee should buy in totally toward your process until it is proven flawed. Push back should only happen after that stage. They should respect you and the process enough to allow that to happen.

.

There are obviously a lot of jobs/fields of work where push back by the "employee" is part of the process. I say "employee", but this is very true of many professional positions where the "employee" is highly trained, highly talented, and was hired to be part of some kind of creative process that attempts to maximize that special talent and training. It seems obvious that pitchers fit that description and are successful in an incredible variety of ways. Very few deliveries are exactly the same, etc., and trying to get a high achieving, talented person to change without convincing them that your way works is a losing proposition. There is also a generational component. It is isn't 1960, 1970, or even 1990 anymore. When managing millennials, especially talented, high achieving millennials, you are setting yourself and the young professional up to fail if you can not explain why something needs to be done, why it needs to be done this particular way, etc. This is not true for all millennials, but there is an incredibly strong trend.

Also, maybe Adair's process just sucked.

[Ohfan67]

It's the job of the managers and the coaches to maximize the potential of the players.

Absolutely. The focus has to be on reaping rewards from the investment that the organization has made into the player. We saw how poorly Leo Mazzone's "my way or the highway" approach worked. It's got to be about the player, not the coach. Especially a freaking position coach!

[Il BuonO]

But the employee should buy in totally toward your process until it is proven flawed. Push back should only happen after that stage. They should respect you and the process enough to allow that to happen.

I never got the feeling that Jake ever bought into the program.

Of course I might be wrong, no way for me to know.

Maybe he did try his utmost to make the O's system work for him, in which case his culpability is reduced.

Baseball is a unique "business". I worked as a chauffeur and the company had standards which usually weren't questioned, but they didn't micromanage the way I drove their clients. I provided a service, their service, but with their understanding I was doing it my way.

[Can_of_corn]

Absolutely. The focus has to be on reaping rewards from the investment that the organization has made into the player. We saw how poorly Leo Mazzone's "my way or the highway" approach worked. It's got to be about the player, not the coach. Especially a freaking position coach!

So if you see what you view as an obvious, correctable flaw, such as DJ Stewart's stance, you should just back down if the player is reluctant to change?

You hire the "freaking" position coaches because they have had a history of success. You suggest they should be ignored if the player in question doesn't agree with them. Why even bother with coaches? Everyone can be like Timmy and Colby and just call dad when they run into trouble.

[Il BuonO]

So if you see what you view as an obvious, correctable flaw, such as DJ Stewart's stance, you should just back down if the player is reluctant to change?

You obviously give instruction as needed, but I'll ask the same question Nick asked in the other thread. Why draft a guy with all these supposed flaws?

[LC_O's_87]

You obviously give instruction as needed, but I'll ask the same question Nick asked in the other thread. Why draft a guy with all these supposed flaws?

I don't know anything but, With DJ Stewart, his best tool seems to be pitch recognition. If a guy has that naturally, and he's athletic, you roll the dice and say those 2 things are hard to teach. You can fix a swing if the guy's got the right foundation. Much harder to teach that batting eye.

[Can_of_corn]

You obviously give instruction as needed, but I'll ask the same question Nick asked in the other thread. Why draft a guy with all these supposed flaws?

Because they think he is undervalued and fixable.